Archive for October, 2009

Dawn Eats Crow

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

News agency Dawn has become the latest media outlet to be used as a puppet by political operatives in Pakistan. In a story published on Monday, October 12, Dawn stated that Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, would be dismissed within 48 hours and he would take over as Presidential spokesperson from Farahtullah Babar.

This report was based on some “Well informed official sources,” and appears to have been first put out by the news service Online. It was given quite a  bit of fanfare, and major international new sources like BBC and CNN quoted Dawn in their reporting.

Well, 48 hours have passed and Ambassador Haqqani is still very deeply ensconced in his position.

So why did a leading Pakistani daily publish this false news? Was the aim to apply psychological pressure on the Zardari-Gilani administration? Or was there some deeper ulterior motive?

The story appears to have been first put out by the news service Online. As is well documented, Online was started under and subsidised by the Musharraf regime. It is quite possible that Musharraf loyalists have planted the rumours in an attempt to destabilize the government. If the report was truly based on information from well informed official sources, it would seem that there has been some attempt to mislead the media and create controversy.

In fact, this is not the first time news media have been used to engineer events instead of reporting them. Rumours have been similarly floated about the removal of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer and Interior Minister Rehman Malik. Others have been used to create the impression of differences between army and civilian government and between President Zardari and PM Gilani.

Whatever the reason behind the rumour, this was not the right thing to do. Even if Ambassador Haqqani resigns or leaves the post sometime in the near future, Dawn will have been proven wrong in an embarrassing lack of professionalism.

This lack of professionalism, though, creates more than just embarrassment for Dawn. In order to properly make decisions about matters of politics, citizens rely on a free and fair media to report well researched facts. If news media are willing puppets for political scheming, the citizens cannot make informed decisions. This is a real threat to the nation.

Today it is Dawn, but tomorrow it could easily be Geo or ARY or any other news source. Let us hope that they all learn from Dawn’s embarrassing mistake and from now on only publish well researched and substantiated facts. No more rumours, please.

How Ironic is Ironic?

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

Agha Haider Raza posts an excellent rebuttal to Ahmed Quraishi’s ridiculous claims about Husain Haqqani. This is a must read:

Ahmed Quraishi’s article If fired, Haqqani threatens to unveil ‘reams’ of Pakistan’s secrets is a prime example of how this journalist is able to twist and manipulate facts in order to provoke hate and anger amongst the Pakistani community.  As the title of Quraishi’s article states, it seems that if Ambassador Haqqani were to be removed from his post, he would threaten to disclose Pakistan’s secrets.  Quraishi then tries to substantiate his argument by quoting the prestigious Foreign Policy magazine.

The article in the Foreign Policy magazine that Quraishi refers to, does not at all, state that Ambassador Haqqani will be opening up a Pandora’s Box.  It is highly unfortunate that Quraishi has yet again, through his writings, picked out sentences in order to sling mud on those he despises.  Ironically, in the same article Josh Rogin articulates

“Insiders point out that the aid conditions, which require the U.S. government to report on the Pakistani military’s efforts to combat terrorist groups in their midst, were available for all to see well in advance.  Moreover, they say, similar conditions were included in U.S. aid packages dating back to 2001, when President George W. Bush and President Pervez Musharraf were the respective leaders.  Ironically, it is Musharraf’s allies, now in the opposition, who are now harping on such conditions.”

It is rather “ironic” that Ahmed Quraishi who is an avid supporter of General Musharraf suddenly has a change of heart – from previously supporting such conditions – and is now cursing the very essence of the Kerry-Lugar Bill.  Why did Quraishi refuse to include the above excerpt in his article where he has written against the efforts of Ambassador Haqqani?

The sentence in Rogin’s article that Quraishi centered his editorial on is as follows

“sources also say that Haqqani has reams of documents that could embarrass the forces aligned against him and sacking him could open up a Pandora’s box of controversy that the government would not appreciate, which he might do if forced to defend himself after being fired his article”

Firstly, any person holding an official government position has the ability to disclose state secrets.  It is rather obvious that over time, Ambassadors come across and read classified documents that may be harmful for the state, if shared with the public.  And secondly, to assume that Ambassador Haqqani would comprise Pakistan’s sovereignty by revealing “reams of documents” is a mere speculation that does not carry any weight.

Furthermore, Quraishi chose to not add a statement by the same source who stated, “most people don’t have the courage to tell the Pakistani people we need the United States”.  This clearly explains that strengthening Pak-US ties is essential not the opposite.  It is also regrettable that Quraishi failed to disclose that Rogin also articulated in his piece “his (Haqqani) U.S. ties are exactly what makes him an effective representative for Islamabad”.

Quraishi in his article also quotes a former US military officer who states “US officials do not know, that the problem is not the so-called ‘anti-American forces’ in Pakistan but the offensive language in the bill”.  If this is the case then Ahmed Quraishi, you as a journalist have failed to do your job correctly by not being able to clearly identify the problems associated with the Kerry-Lugar Bill.

By coming out in public and stating that the US is not aware of the situation in Pakistan in regards to the Kerry-Lugar Bill, Quraishi is only making a fool of himself.  The Foreign Minister of Pakistan is currently in Washington explaining the situation to none other than the Vice President of the United States and key members of the US Senate.  General Kayani has explained his reservations over the Kerry-Lugar Bill to the top US military commander Admiral Mike Mullen.  “US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W Patterson and the US military leadership are playing important roles in sensitizing President Obama to the controversial clauses of the proposed US aid bill that has triggered a crisis-like situation in Pakistan”.  And yet Quraishi has the audacity to state that the US is not fully aware of the criticism and this is primarily due to Ambassador Haqqani misinforming the United States.

The main argument against the implementation of the Kerry-Lugar Bill in Pakistan is that the Bill threatens our national sovereignty.  Today, Senator Kerry stated that the US Congress would “offer a new explanation and clarification” for those criticizing the Bill.  I fail to understand how Quraishi has the ability to write “the problem is that American policymakers have been badly misinformed” when the sponsor of the Kerry-Lugar Bill is coming out and addressing the issues arising out of the Bill.

Quraishi’s article is proof of the kind of deplorable and controversial style of journalism he has become accustomed to.  He has mastered the art of twisting facts around so brilliantly that many of us have lost sight of the truth and facts.  This article is not an attempt to defame Quraishi but rather a request to stop spreading rumours which play with the hearts and minds of Pakistanis.  My country has had enough of conspiracy theorists and it is time we enjoy the greatness of truth and accountability Quaid-e-Azam envisioned for us.

Sovereignty Hysteria

Sunday, October 11th, 2009

Much ado, to borrow from Shakespeare, has been made in the media lately about the idea that the Kerry-Lugar bill passed by the US Congress to provide $7.5 billion in aid to Pakistan somehow infringes on Pakistan’s sovereignty. And much like Shakespeare’s ‘ado’, this one is also about nothing. Only, listening to the chattering heads on Geo and ARY, you might think otherwise.

Over the weekend, Gul Bukhari makes the case against sovereignty hysteria plain and simple:

The hysterical reaction to the Kerry-Lugar bill by formerly rational TV anchors, analysts and politicians is painful to watch. True, one does not expect any better from those who only oppose and criticise for the sake of doing so, but to hear saner voices in the mad din is distressing.

In Shakespeare’s words,
[They] have no spur
To prick the sides of [their] intent, but only
Vaulting [patriotism] ambition, which o’erleaps itself,
And falls on th’other…

In his soliloquy, Macbeth argued with himself against the murder of King Duncan, who was not only his relative but also a pious and good king. In recognising that he had ‘no spur to prick the sides of his intent, but only vaulting ambition’ he admitted that his only justification for contemplating the murder of his cousin, the king, was his ambition, and he describes it in terms of a rider who jumps too high and as a consequence ‘o’erleaps’ to fall on the other side of the steed.

I cannot help seeing slow-motion images of these rider-critics, once again, in their shining suits of patriotism o’erleaping and falling on th’other (the last time was after the Mumbai carnage). These otherwise reasonable, intelligent and sensible persons all admit to the factual nature of Pakistan’s transgressions in the past, based on which the bill places restrictions upon the country.

None deny Pakistan’s past role in nuclear proliferation; none deny Pakistan’s past misuse of American aid towards aiding and consolidating Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives; none now deny the involvement of Pakistanis in the Mumbai attack; and none deny the presence of the Taliban in south Punjab. Moreover, none disagree that today Pakistan is on a precipice, gazing down into a void due to these very reasons.

Yet an unreasonable emotion, which they probably identify as patriotism, prompts these detractors to aggressively attack every ‘string’ attached to the proposed non-military aid bill that aims to shoot down the very causes they themselves recognise as being at the root of many of Pakistan’s troubles. So hateful are the ‘strings’ to them that they would rather have no aid than have their state be forced to quit fomenting extremism and terrorism. Admirable patriotism!

I ask them to sincerely examine their emotions and try to discern whether it is truly patriotism they feel, or pain, humiliation and anger at a spade being called a spade, and being told to become a proper cudgel. Love for one’s country should not plunge one into blind denial and a fit of tantrums. ‘Yes! These may be valid concerns, but who is the US to tell us so? We would rather eat grass….’ To those who speak these words, it has become an issue of preserving sovereignty.

First, critics of the bill must answer a humiliating question: the preservation of whose sovereignty are they referring to? Is it of the same country whose armed forces were forced to fight the Taliban in Swat because of American threats of on-the-ground forces and aerial attacks, Afghan-occupation style? Or is it of a country that has accepted drone attacks in the tribal areas, launched by foreign forces to take out entrenched Al Qaeda and Taliban elements?

With mixed feelings of pain and relief, I must remind all that had the country in question actually been sovereign, and had the US not successfully arm-twisted Islamabad and GHQ into action this year, we would quite possibly have been the proud citizens of the Islamic Emirate of Pakistan, ruled by the benevolent Emir Mullah Omar today.

Second, how are American attempts to stop nuclear proliferation by a state that demonstrated rogue behaviour in the past a sovereignty issue? The bill is clear in its aims of stopping Pakistan from pursuing self-destruction. Is there anyone who denies that our adventures in Kashmir and Afghanistan have landed us in the fine mess we are in today? Or that the world is a safer place with countries like Iran on the brink of going nuclear?

Sensible patriotism might have entailed insistence on the insertion of clauses of transparency in the processes involved, not throwing tantrums at the principles contained within the bill. The objectives and principles contained in it are actually constructive from the Pakistani people’s point of view. But if a cool-minded analysis of the bill reveals any modalities that might put the national interest at risk, then those ought to be negotiated.

For example, opinion-makers might want to ask our parliament to negotiate provisions in the bill whereby, for example, a transparent legal process within Pakistan would precede any decision on the fate of suspected nuclear proliferators, to safeguard against any perceived threats from unjustified future demands from the US.

Should the US whimsically decide to accuse Pakistan of atrocities carried out in neighbouring countries at some future date, instead of raising spurious objections like those of a PML-N parliamentarian pertaining to the possibility of sudden stoppage of the construction of hospitals from aid funds, a more honest and wise approach would be required.

It would be infinitely more mature for our politicians to be appreciative of the US making aid contingent on a stop to the military’s extra-curricular activities, as well as the state’s refraining from promoting extremism and terrorism. They can then set about proposing safeguards against potential threats to national interests contained within the bill.

Can anyone disagree that much of the extremism in Pakistan today was sponsored by the state for a long time?

Distortions and delusions

Sunday, October 4th, 2009

Excellent column in Dawn this weekend about a new documentary that demolishes many of the ridiculous conspiracy theories that have been going around in recent years.

National Geographic aired a programme about the 9/11 conspiracies the other evening. While it did not cover any new ground, it did painstakingly demolish many of the idiotic theories that have been doing the rounds for the last eight years.What struck me most about the TV documentary was the ease with which a rumour can be spread compared with the time and expertise it takes to expose it as a lie. Literally millions continue to believe that the Twin Towers were actually brought down by thousands of explosive charges planted inside the building and not by the airliners that crashed into them. It took a crew of experts who brought down a building to demonstrate how ridiculous the conspiracy theory really is.

The camera took us to a condemned structure that was scheduled to be demolished, and then showed the team wiring up the place with explosives. The number and location of demolition charges had been precisely calculated in advance, and it took two days to place them, even though it was a three-storied structure. The Twin Towers, by contrast, were skyscrapers that would have taken weeks to wire up. To imagine that this could have been done secretly is to live at the very top of cloud cuckoo land.

One 9/11 conspiracy theory that became a favourite on the Internet the day after the attack was that all Jewish workers had escaped the carnage as they had been warned of the attacks, and therefore did not come to work that fateful day. This is supposed to prove the Mossad connection with the atrocity. However, nobody ever says how they jumped to this conclusion as employment records in the US do not mention religion. And yet there are millions of people who continue to believe this particular urban myth.

Just as these crackpot theories continue to do the rounds in cyberspace, all kinds of outrageous claims are made on TV and go unchallenged. Recently in Pakistan, a number of newspaper and TV reports claimed that the US embassy in Islamabad was about to get 1,000 Marines, apart from hiring the services of Blackwater, the private security outfit that has won infamy for its actions in Iraq.

Suddenly, talking heads across TV screens in Pakistan were nodding in unison. Nobody mentioned that Blackwater had changed its name to Xe. And certainly, no print or electronic journalist took the trouble to check with American diplomats. In fact, even when the embassy issued a clarification that no battalions of Marines were about to storm Islamabad, many continue to insist that there’s going to be a surge in their existing number. Perfectly reasonable people believe the embassy will be transformed into a bastion, and that Pakistani installations will be at risk.

Even though a few dissenting voices challenge these distortions, it is hard to rebut a falsehood on TV, given the format of talk shows. By allowing equal time to participants, the person with an axe to grind can throw any number of verbal grenades without the need to prove their veracity. But anybody trying to demolish these lies immediately runs into the time barrier. The reality is that on camera, it is harder to establish the truth than it is to concoct or repeat a few lies.

Another example of the media distorting reality is the Kerry-Lugar Bill. This legislation, recently voted into law by the US Congress, is a major triumph for Pakistan. But the way it has been dissected by our ‘experts,’ it would seem that it’s a dubious bit of rubbish dragged in by the cat. Pundits have examined it for caveats and restrictions, and continue to smell a rat.

For years, the Pakistani chattering classes have been bemoaning the fact that Americans have helped Pakistani governments when they have been run by generals. This, they rightly argue, has helped the perpetuation of military rule, pointing to Zia and Musharraf as prime examples of American largesse handed over to dictators. But here we have an unprecedented infusion of assistance to sustainable development and democratic institutions, and there are few cheers for those who have worked to put this package together and get it approved by Congress.

Nobody hands out $1.5bn annually over five years unless it’s in their interest. Clearly, Americans would like to see a stable Pakistan that does not provide a safe haven for jihadis. But surely this is what we want too. So why this reluctance to acknowledge a convergence of interests?

In a sense, our relations with the US have become hostage to a virulent media that seems hell-bent on bashing Washington at every turn. Over the years, I have opposed American policies in many parts of the world. But I recognise that the US has global interests and can be a force for good.

So who is whipping up this anti-American sentiment? A lot of the blame must be placed at the White House gate. The blank cheque to Israel is the source of much anger. The invasion of Iraq fuels some of the fury. Avoidable civilian deaths in Afghanistan are another cause. In Pakistan itself, the drone attacks that have killed so many Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders have also caused considerable collateral damage.

But there’s more to it than these policies and perceptions. In the current venom-laden environment, it is clear that ordinary Pakistanis are being manipulated by cynical groups. Unfortunately, our media is more accustomed to pandering to existing prejudices than challenging them. So if anti-West sentiments are the flavour of the day, TV channels are happy to fan the flames to improve their ratings.

Currently, the religious right, the liberal left and the military establishment are riding the same anti-American bandwagon. The mullahs tacitly support the Taliban and what they stand for; the left hates the US more than it does the Taliban; and the army is sick of being told by Washington that it isn’t doing enough. By amplifying these anti-West feelings through the media, our generals can tell Americans that they cannot act take tougher action against the militants in Fata as it would inflame public sentiment and might destabilise the government.

While we tend to get very emotional about distant Muslim causes, our own problems need urgent attention. Poverty, disease and illiteracy are all pressing concerns that successive governments have failed to tackle. Thus far, the excuse for this neglect has been the lack of resources. Now, however, the Kerry-Lugar bill gives us an opportunity to invest in our people. Let’s not blow this chance.